The reporters are resorting to a very old polite assumption, that if you talk about something - in any way - you somehow approve of it. Therefore, one must never talk about unseemly things in polite company.

Drove me crazy as a kid, because I wanted to talk about stuff. So I totally get Rush when he does this, but there really has been a sea change in deportment in our lifetime.

The hypocrisy is the reporters acting as if they were models of old-school rectitude.

Boy, are you right, bpm4532. I'm amazed at some of my highly-educated friends and acquaintances who have absolutely no critical thinking skills whatsoever, and whose default reaction to being asked for more information on or proof of their assertions is met by personal attack.

O'Brien referred to Henry Lewis Gates as, "Uncle Skip," back during the days of the beer summit, letting us know she's one of the elite. Her preening self satisfaction in her own elite righteous sense of the correctness of her own opinions makes her one of the most revolting on-air presenters in the world of cable news.

At some point perhaps Rush will learn that the entire democrat machine is taping his every word.They are listening in and waiting for Rush to say something that could get him in trouble. Rush isn't careful with his pronouns. Rush isn't careful when he "quotes" items from other news or opinion sources. He often interjects his own thoughts as he is reading something someone else wrote, and the listener cannot tell exactly where his thoughts begin and end. So, Rush isn't pro-pedophile, but he reads something and the pro-democrat press use it against him - because Rush is sloppy!

The left want to ruin him and ruin his influence. Rush steps right into it.

The Left, as a matter of principle, does not assign value to a human life until it can be fucked, taxed, and exploited for democratic leverage.

Their latest anti-gun crusade only serves to confirm their selective regard for human life. They absolve the federal government of arming criminal syndicates, psychotropic drug induced insanity, disproportionate commission of violent crimes by minorities (especially black Americans), and, of course, the annual homicide by scalpel and vacuum of around one million men and women before they have a voice to protest their involuntary exploitation and seek justice through due process.

They believe in a "diversity" which establishes that individual lives are disposable and interchangeable from conception to grave based on the "color of their skin".

To remain true to liberal (i.e. selective) standards, we must normalize pedophilia.

The LA Times has been running a series on the fact that the Boy Scouts expelled some scoutmasters who were found to be pedophiles. Not a word is uttered about the Boy Scouts' position on gay scoutmasters.

Are we really supposed to believe that O'Brien & her producers don't know about an article in the Guardian, of all places?

Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test in the least.

I think what they were doing was setting up a countering discourse to the right wing blitz that they knew was coming, i.e. left-wing rag seeks to normalize pedophilia! So, they did what they had to do to neutralize it -- they told a big, fat, whopping lie.

The statist will to power dictates that, in the short term, pedophilia is "bad" because it is a useful tool to attack churches and private schools and Boy Scouting and other uppity private institutions. In the long term, however, the statist will to power supports pedophilia because it breaks down the family trust and is a victim creator.

Remember when Rush quoted someone from the LA Times who called Obama a name (I forget what the name was)...It didn't matter that Rush was quoting someone else. It sounded like Rush was saying it.Rush is sloppy.

So I ask you, libs. If we do not accept pedophilia as a norm, and/or become completley non judgemental are we the bigots against the next wave of civil rights strides.And should marriage not follow soon after?

Remember that horrible Aurora movie theater shooting? Remember when ABC's Brian Ross came out and basically stated: 'we are not certain but it looks like James Holmes is a member of the Tea Party!'Brian Ross was 100% wrong, but the damage was done.

Report bullshit and lies now, apologize in small print on page 25 later. It's all for the glory of the democrat party.

See what I mean about the left? It's easy to say yes to being a pedobear, but you are a meanie-buttface if you say no to being a pedobear. Democrats and global leftists are nothing but the ideology of easy. It takes little to no thought to be a leftist of any stripe.

Phil -It was not beneficial for Rush to say what he said about Sandra Fluke. Now, I think Sandra Fluke is a disgusting greedy selfish slut-like drain, but I'm a nobody on a blog. I don't have 20 million listeners and a microphone. I don'thave Media Matters listening to my every word.

For me it's not about political correctness, it's about wishing Rush would think carefully first before he says things that end up as a gift to the left.

His New Years resolution is to "keep a low profile". Rush needs to understand the left are listening in and waiting for whatever they can use against him. Of course now we have a dishonest and corrupt media willing to use any distortion and half-truth to force their agenda.

Revenant wrote:You expect them to pay attention to what people are saying in London?

Perhaps the brits are just more evolved than the rest of us knuckle draggers (you included). I mean, experts made points in the article about pedophilia. I don't see why you should discount those points, considering the experts say they should be treated as the next sexual orientation.

And then of course there are those suggesting that they can be "Cured" of their affliction.

Why is that not offensive?

Why can't a pedophile sing Lady Gaga's "born this way" and take pride in their identity?

You may not agree with the assertion but I don't see why we shouldnt view that simply as bigotry of an unenlightented mind.

At some point perhaps Rush will learn that the entire democrat machine is taping his every word.They are listening in and waiting for Rush to say something that could get him in trouble. Rush isn't careful with his pronouns. Rush isn't careful when he "quotes" items from other news or opinion sources. He often interjects his own thoughts as he is reading something someone else wrote, and the listener cannot tell exactly where his thoughts begin and end. So, Rush isn't pro-pedophile, but he reads something and the pro-democrat press use it against him - because Rush is sloppy!

The left want to ruin him and ruin his influence. Rush steps right into it.

NOBODY feigns indignance as well as Rush does. His 'I DON'T want to talk about me' line is on a continuous loop - and all the while he talks about himself. Rush sloppy? Steps right into it? I'd say he knows what he's doing and jumps right into it with both feet to splatter the libs standing nearby. And he has his recorders set to go to catch everything everybody says about him. You think it's just a coicidence he had those tapes?

1st we had the Belgian elite/movers & shakers involved in a pedophilia ring, now it's Savile & his merry band of buggerers movers/shakers elite and The Grauniad decides to legitimize it or at least get a conversation going.

This article makes me want to commit a hate crime against gays and blacks.

The left had better remember that their pet perverted causes are only tolerated because as of now we can escape from the fags and the spooks---by moving.

They'd better remember plenty of other times in history were as "tolerant" as ours. Then there is a backlash once it goes too far---and we revert to where some of the Middle East and Southern Asia is now---stoning of loose women and homosexuals, and open discrimination and hatred of blacks.

It seems to me that a bigger point is being missed, which is that those positions being discussed are primarily from 70's academia, and coincidence with a large portion of the current BBC scandal (no coincidence, IMO)

I actually find the article proof that the trial balloon has already failed. Western society (in true irony, as Western values are the scourge of the Left) as a whole has rejected that idea, and now is much less accepting of pedophilia than in the 70's.

And as the majority of pedophilia is adult male/juvenile female, the Left itself is very unlikely to ever retake the position it is harmless given how damaging it has been shown to be to the women subjected to such abuse

Pedophilia is having sex with someone who has not gone through puberty yet.

"Under age sex" is merely sex with a minor, who has already gone through puberty. We have arbitrary laws today that make it a crime, but a 14 year old girl who's gone through puberty is going to be naturally sexually attractive to most men.

The feminazis of the left have deliberately confused "underage sex" with pedophilia to try to shame men from liking what is natural: a young, fully fertile girl.

This is why the Elmo sex scandal wasn't that bad to me. Sure the faggot committed sodomy, and is an emotionally messed up man, but all the men he had it with had gone through puberty---they were teenagers. They merely had crossed the "correct" age threshold in whatever states they were or Elmo fucked them in.

Elmo, like every other guy, likes his ass youthful. That wasn't the sick part.

AmartelWould you say this is step 3 or 4? I've read articles advocating for pedophilia, but only by NAMBLA.The reaction from the press toward pedophilia reminds me of where the media was on homosexuality in about the mid 70"s to early 80's.

I actually expect that they would pay attention to first of all the NYT, and then I would expect that they would pay attention to the Guardian because it was lefty & British.

That's because you think of them as ideologues when actually they're just amazingly self-involved.

They tend to notice exactly two types of news stories

1. Things that fit with their world-view.

2. Things said by their horrible enemies that conflict with that world-view.

E.g., when I was forcibly exposed to CNN in the airport this holiday season I got to hear one of their ostensibly professional journalists say, in all seriousness, that putting armed guards in schools was such a crazy idea that nobody had ever thought to suggest it before -- that it just went to show how crazy the NRA had become.

Now, that's a mighty dumb thing to say, since armed guards have been in schools since at least the 1980s. But odds are there are no guards in the private school HIS kids go to, and certainly neither he or his friends thought to suggest something so gauche as adding them, so it can't have been suggested at all by anybody ever.

Rush does a good job defending himself. Still, Rush could clarify a bit better as he runs through the UK article.

The way CNN/Solodad presented this non-story was total hackery. Solodad is very unprofessional.

RUSH: Okay, so here's Soledad O'Brien of CNN, who cannot do an interview without crib notes from bloggers -- she cannot do an interview with somebody opposite her worldview without help -- and she's wondering about how my mind works. Now, what does it say about the so-called reporters, journalists, the best of the best? What does it say about these so-called reporters that they couldn't figure out what I was saying when all I was doing was reading from a story from the UK Guardian?

If they couldn't figure that out, they probably can't figure out most things. Maybe what CNN needs to do is find some people who have comprehension skills. This was not hieroglyphics. I was simply reading from a newspaper article in Great Britain. As I say, obviously their problem is that I was the one talking about it. They just have a problem with me. Which is fine. It's a badge of honor and all that stuff. But it still is amazing.

There probably is nobody better at communicating and more open about what I believe --and who's explanatory about it and why I believe what I believe -- than I am. Yeah, it's like they got mad at the "Magic Negro"' thing. All I was doing was quoting from an LA Times story and they acted like I wrote it. Which is probably what they're doing here, thinking I made all this up or made up half of it. Anyway, it's funny; it's hilarious.

It's not so much the crime as the politics of the person committing the crime or the institution that he represents. Charley Chaplin, Marlon Brando, Roman Polanski, Yves Montand, Mao, and Daniel Ortega have been charged with engaging in sex with underage girls. These are left wing figures and, if their offenses are even mentioned at all in their biographies, it's treated as a footnote to their otherwise illusory careers or, worse, as an example of how they had to suffer at the hands of the puritans......Compare the treatment of Joe Paterno to that of the BBC enablers of Jimmy Saville. Can you offhand name even one of the BBC people who looked the other way?

He deliberately drugged her without her knowledge or consent to make her resist less. And then he forcibly held her down and raped her, with her yelling "no" and "stop".

It was, ahem, "rape rape." Monstrous, made-for-a-movie rape.

That's a far cry from Chaplin, who as far as the gossip I read said, merely had consensual sex with sexually mature girls who happened to be under the arbitrary age limit.

"Statutory," as McMurphy said.

The bright line rule of arbitrary age limits is to prevent courts from having to delve into exactly what a girl looked like at the time of the rape and whether she looked "of age" or was sexually mature then. Which has a certain logic, since by the time a trial hits, the girl could conceivably (ha!) have physically matured enough to make the determination difficult, especially if there are few pictures. What's more, given that "consent" is a huge feminist issue, she could be convinced that she never "consented" for reals.

But statutory rape laws are rather counter-productive these days, and only used to punish weak men (and sometimes even weaker women). Given that we live in an age where every kid has a face book page that's constantly updated, a twitter feed, and a camera on every phone, as well as advanced genetic and chemical testing, it shouldn't be that bad for courts to determine sexual maturity for sexual consent.

One things for sure: men shouldn't be "shamed" or be called "pedophiles" when they cast a lustful eye at a fully bloomed 15-year-old in a bikini. We probably will never pursue her, date her, or fuck her (how many men do it to the women they see above age). But there's still a natural pull towards a reproductively mature woman, no matter what age.

It's not anymore arbitrary than your she's been through puberty standard. You just don't like where it's been set. Although like Derbyshire I imagine you'd have enough trouble having sex with a thirty year old so what you are really complaining about is that you can't watch man on 14 year old porn.

It's not anymore arbitrary than your she's been through puberty standard.

See, now you've put me in the position of arguing that Whores is right about something. I hope you feel properly ashamed of yourself.

Let me put it to you this way: if the age of consent isn't arbitrary, why does it differ from state to state and country to country? Are you going to try arguing with a straight face that Minnesota women become sexually, intellectually and emotionally mature two years earlier than the women of Wisconsin? Because the law claims that they do.

It's not anymore arbitrary than your she's been through puberty standard. --Excuse me? Puberty defines sexual reproduction. If you go through it, you can breed, which is the purpose of sex. The "bright line" is merely the courts throwing up their hands and saying " we can't figure when a girl passe puberty in every case, so well set an age we think is reasonable for her to have gone through it."

If a girl CAN breed, nature is allowing her the option. THAT is when she can consent---when NATURE tells her its ok.

And these laws ARE for girls, sexual "equalist" arguments notwithstanding. they were created to "protect" girls ad are maintained by feminazis to "protect" them.

You just don't like where it's been set.---Plenty of states and nations have much lower ones. England (from the linked article) was once 10 years old. But the lines are stupid both ways: too low, and the charge will never stick except in obvious pedophilia cases (for example, if the age is 12 or 10). Too high, and it demonizes natural male instinct and throws too many guys into the sex offender category when they absolutely don't belong there (17 or 18). In between, and you get a mishmash of race and ethnic and genetic issues; for example, if it's 15, and she's a very late bloomer, you could be pedophilic and legal, but if shes 14 and all curvy and menstruating, it's prison time, bucko!

Although like Derbyshire I imagine you'd have enough trouble having sex with a thirty year old----Does your mom count?

so what you are really complaining about is that you can't watch man on 14 year old porn.--LMAO. Yeah, that's why there's so much "barely legal" and schoolgirl and babysitter porn and "ingenue"-look girls in porn. Because of solely me.

God, you pee all over yourself.

Not to mention the red herring of fertility. 25 year olds are plenty fertile if you don't use a condom.---Or the red herring of claiming that I said 25 year old girls are less fertile. But post-puberty to 24-25 is the time when you can sneeze at a chick and get them pregnant. After that, however.....

In the old days one got educated, learned how to reason effectively, and then was given a degree. These days they skip steps 1 and 2 and go straight to the degree after four years of binge drinking and one-night stands.

On nearly all campuses the College of Engineering is the exception (I would not hire someone from Harvard as an engineer under any circumstances).

AprilApple falls into the trap. Notice she cautions Rush to watch what he says or how he says it.

That is how the Alinsky left wants it. They want people to self censor. They want people, especially their political opponents, to validate their criticisms, by calling for the target to "watch what he says".

They rely on peoples decency to further their propaganda operation, while relying on people to ignore that the leftist Alinskyers HAVE no decency when making scurrilous anf false accusations.

Puberty happens in stages so someone somewhere would be responsible for deciding who has been through puberty. I'm sure whores will volunteer to be that guy but do you really want a guy who makes your mom jokes to have that kind of power. Races go through puberty at different times so are we gonna have different ages of consent for different races. Sure the current laws are arbitrary but you aren't proposing to replacing them with anything less arbitrary. You are just proposing that people stop thinking its creepy that you ogle fourteen year olds. Biology says we should kill step kids so whys that law being all arbitrary and stuff.

Remember when the American Psychiatric Association asserted that pedophilia was normal and it also asserted that young kids benefited from that kind of contact? Here's one link http://narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html It just goes to show how a small group with an agenda can take control of an issue when no one is watching.

He said that pedophilia was a genetic trait, that the people were wired that way from conception and that child molesters are 'no different' than alcoholics and 'need treatment, not prison sentences'.

What all this 'pro child rapists' forget is that children can't give consent.

is that actually true though? Playing the devils advocate here, but is it really true that kids can't give consent? Are they physically incapable of doing so or are we as society simply telling them that even if they do give consent we won't acknowledge it.Can a16 year old really not vote?like, if they went to,the voting booth would they be scratching their heads as to how to get the levers to work. Or are we as society telling them they can't.If its the latter in both cases, then just as some experts are questioning the assumptions about pedophilia they too could question the assumptions about what it means to be a kid.For example, in some cultures a child becomes a woman when she menstruates. That usually occurs long before she becomes 16. Why shouldn't THAT be the standard we use when dealing with kids? Is then your objection to pedophilia simply a bias based on your assuming that this cultures arbitrary and discriminatory view of children is the right one. What if a child doesn't feel that way? What about the phrase babies making babies. If they can have babies while still being young that means they are physically and emotionally capable of having sex. So then why should society deny them the right to date who they want?Note I said I was arguing as the devils advocate, I'm actuall perfectly ok with pedophilia being criminal.But this is pretty much the same argument for why we need to normalize any relationship or orientation that is outside the norm. If the argument is that its discrimantory then its true. But in some cases, so what?

Now, what about the idea of bigotry if you deny that orientation? if a pedophile says you are in fact bigoted in denying his nature, and children who want to be in relationships with adults (and there is some expert somewhere who will say these relationships don't actually cause harm if they are consensual) says you are bigoted, what then? Whether you are a good person or bad person on that question depends on what some people view as the position, be they Hollywood types or media types. Really though, you are left with accepting that some positions are normal and some not and you can make judgments and laws about them or you can't.

This is really a criticism of the left, who claim to be open minded. Why not on pedophilia? Any objection they could bring would be social bigotry, (ie pedophilia is really normal and therefore rejecting it is bigotry based on unshared morality and kids not being able to date people they want is based on a quaint notion of how we should treat kids that has no basis in reality for the world we live) and that denotes closed mindedness.If you are open minded, how could you be closed minded on things you are against. Ad note, not only are you against it but are perfectly ok with jailing people and depriving them of rights based on what should be (in their view) normative behavior.

"Would you say this is step 3 or 4? I've read articles advocating for pedophilia, but only by NAMBLA.The reaction from the press toward pedophilia reminds me of where the media was on homosexuality in about the mid 70"s to early 80's."

Hi Wyo. It's a fluid thing. It will bubble up through the various progressions of lefty media. From obscure newsletters devoted to the cause, to academic journals, to medical journals, to law reviews, to hyper-lefty papers, to mentions on Slate, to articles in foreign papers, to the NYT/WaPo, to MSNBC, to CNN, and finally to an outrage segments on O'Reilly, etc. etc.

Again, I think we are all, as a whole and myself included in an earlier post, co-mingling the terms "pedophilia" (a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children) with "ephebophile" (a preferential attraction to post-pubescent adolescents) and/or simply having sex what is currently defined as an underage adolescent even if it is not their preferential attraction.

I seriously doubt anyone on this board, or even too many psychologists or psychiatrists in this day and age would advocate legalizing pedophelia.

The real argument seems, to me, to revolve around post-pubescent adolescents and adults, and where to draw the lines.

The line drawing has other elements, too, which are also not being discussed here, primary the very tricky situation of older adolescents and young adults having relationships with younger adolescents (not prepubescent children).

There is a LOT of variation around that. In some states a 17 or 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a sex crime, in many others it is not. In other states, a 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old is a sex crime, in many others it is not, or if the older person is 18, not 19, again it is not a crime.

We try look to the relative age differences, but even there it is very, very arbitrary.

If my wife of 27 years had been 3 months younger when we met, i would have been guilty of a sex crime by today's standards (but not by the laws at that time. My brother and his wife of 24 years could have been charged even under the laws in effect when he he met his wife.

That is what makes all of this so hard for the adolescent scenarios - it is NOT always simply about sex. There are real issues around love at those ages as well.

The legal homosexuality -> legal pedophilia slippery slope argument is idiotic. It is akin to saying "well, the Supreme Court ruled that sex between a black man and a white woman is legal, so it is only a matter of time before they rule that it is legal to have sex with farm animals".

The people who claim homosexuality is harmful are objectively wrong. They really ARE bigots and ignoramuses; they were forty years ago, they are today, and they will be forty years from now.

The people who claim pedophilia is harmful to children are objectively right. It really does emotionally cripple most of its victims. Anyone who thinks Americans society will collectively decide that kid-fucking is acceptable is completely insane.

Legalization of harmless consensual sex between adults does not lead to legalization of sex with pre-sexual children. The trend has been in the exact opposite direction: the age of consent has been steadily going UP for two hundred years. Hell, go back forty years in this country and you could get prison time for sodomy... but legally marry your 14-year-old cousin.

Revenant wrote:The people who claim homosexuality is harmful are objectively wrong. They really ARE bigots and ignoramuses; they were forty years ago, they are today, and they will be forty years from now.

The people who claim pedophilia is harmful to children are objectively right. It really does emotionally cripple most of its victims. Anyone who thinks Americans society will collectively decide that kid-fucking is acceptable is completely insane.

I listen to the radio, talk, or whatever, when I'm going somewhere. So I'm not a regular start-to-finish listener to the Limbaugh show or any other, but I hear snippets fairly often.

What strikes me, over and over again, is that Limbaugh is NOTHING like how he is portrayed, repeatedly, by others in the media. Little or nothing he says is shocking, he's not a "race baiter" or any such thing, and even his famed "slut" comment was something I might have said myself. And I don't have socially conservative values about sex.

It's like there's this Emmanuel Goldstein construction that is a stand-in for Limbaugh on CNN and other places, and then there's the real Rush Limbaugh, who is remarkably mainstream and "normal", considering.

Hell, what's wrong with same sex marriage, just because it upends thousands of years of history? Nothing wrong with it, let's just go with the flow. After all, it's not like after this crusade gets it way that anyone will be talking about why bestiality is private sexual conduct that shouldn't be regulated by the state or anything. http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/05/zoophilia-sex-toys-and-the-consitutional-protection-of-autonomous-sex/ Nope, everything will stop with legalization of same sex marriage, no slppery slope there at all, nothing to see here. Just move along now, folks.

Direct copy from another thread, just as applicable here as there.

The slippery slope argument- homosexuality> bestiality was supposedly nonsense. Same as SSM > polyamory is supposedly nonsense. Yet, all is happening, at an increasing tempo. Normalization of pedophilia is only a waystation.

I am reading this thread - and it is already being discussed, that things like of age of consent, etc. are really just too bigoted by half.A la bonheur - the thing is done, just a question of time and a few withering articles in the obvious papers and on Huffpost, making a fresh definition of what falls under the label Bigotry - and there you are.It is not a question of a slippery slope, really. The slippery slope was the twentieth century. (Mao, anybody? Great Hero of all peoples who didn't live through it) And the last century was a tremendously big beast, that will take more than a couple of generations of healing, and we haven't begun yet, but are still ploughing on with grand new definitons about human nature and societal experiments.The only thing that I find astonishing is - I really thought monogamy would be the next target. After all, though certainly grounded in Roman Law, the real legislators for monogamy were the Christians. And they are up for grabs anyway - a legitimate target for scorn and insult. So why pedophilia which I thought had come and gone with the Seventies?

'Savile groomed the nation': Official police report into DJ's 60 years of abuse reveals that he raped 34 women and girls and sexually assaulted up to 450Met officer in charge of investigation Peter Spindler says Savile targeted victims in almost every part of Britain

Scotland Yard detective says he must have spent 'every minute of every waking day' thinking about sexually offending

Savile was 'without doubt one of the most prolific sex offenders we have ever come across', police and NSPCC say

Instead of gun control, why not Hollywood control? Gun triggers are touched by fingers. But Hollywood, guided more by profits than OT prophets, poisons the minds that pull the triggers. Hollywood likes hiding behind the First Amendment more than abiding by the Ten Commandments, one of which says "Thou shalt not kill." Even more insidiously, some of the most powerful Hollywood moguls quietly embrace the most unspeakably evil forms of child abuse. Google or Yahoo "The Talmud" which says that Jewish adults are allowed to have sex with children as young as three years old! Also Google or Yahoo "Pedophilia: The Talmud's Dirty Secret." (There are those who even want to normalize and legalize pedophilia! - Google "jewishfaces.com/porn.html.") Why do some of us focus only on "mopping up" the aftereffects of Hollywood's overflowing sex-and-violence "faucet" instead of trying to shut it off? Let's control the big "guns" of Hollywood - and NOT guns!